The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and corroborated evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

1. These appeals have been preferred by accused 1 to 3 in Sessions Case No. 63 of 1958 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Trivandrum. Criminal Appeal No. 21 is by the first accused, No. 22 by the third accused and No. 46 by the second accused. All the three were convicted under S.232,235 and 243 of the Indian Penal Code. The first accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years for the offence under S.232 and simple imprisonment for one year under S.243. The second and third accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under S.232 and two years for the offence under S.243. No sentence was awarded for the offence under S.235, and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The case for the Prosecution may be briefly stated: Accused 2 and 3 are the sons of the first accused. Pw. 9, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chalai, Trivandrum, and Shri Sarangadharan, the Grime Branch Sub-Inspector of Trivandrum, were in the All India Exhibition grounds at Pazhavangadi at about 11-45 P. M. on 13-2-1958. While they were there they received information that the accused were counterfeiting coins at their residence at Bheemapally, within the city of Trivandrum. They immediately proceeded to the place in a van (or jeep) accompanied by three constables attached to the Chalai Police Station. On the way they met Pw. 2 in front of the mosque at Bheemapally and he was asked to get into the van. They proceeded to the house of the first accused and stopped the van in front of the first accused's house. Pw.1 and one Peer Muhamed were seen there. Pw. 9 told them about the object of their visit and asked them to accompany them to the house of the accused. They went into the court-yard and peeped through the open window of the south-western room of the house when they saw accused 1 to 3 engaged in the process of counterfeiting coins. The first accused was polishing some coins with brown powder, the second accused examining a half-rupee coin and the third accused cutting the edges of an unfinished half-rupee coin with a pair of scissors. The door of the room was not bolted, and they entered the room. M.Os. Nos.1 to 10 were in the room at that time. These included brown powder, an aluminium dish, four earthenware moulds for making half-rupees, two moulds for making quarter rupees, a piece of white string, five finished counterfeit half-rupee coins, nine unfinished half-rupee coins, four pieces of lead, four iron bands and a pair of scissors. The accused were asked to produce other articles connected with the manufacturing process, and the third accused produced M.Os. Nos. 11 to 21 which include a lead sheet in the shape of a ribbon, pieces of lead and antimony, a bamboo blowpipe, table knife, sand paper, etc. The second accused produced an earthenware jug, a metal spoon and some charcoal. Pw. 9 prepared a mahazar, which was attested by Pws.1, 2 and Pear Muhamed, and he took possession of all the articles. The accused were arrested and taken to the police station the same night. Pw. 9 then recorded his own statement as the first information relating to this case, After further investigation the accused were charged before the City Second Class Magistrate, Trivandrum, who conducted the preliminary enquiry and committed the accused to the court of sessions to stand their trial for offences under S.232, 235 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. At the trial, charges were framed under S.232, 235, 243 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty and sentenced them, as stated above.

3. These appeals have been forwarded by the accused through the jail authorities. As the accused were unrepresented, advocate Sri K.S. Rajamony was engaged by the State to represent them. The points raised by him were that the investigation was vitiated by illegalities and that the witnesses examined for the Prosecution were not reliable.

4. The main defence of the accused